W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

Minutes of the 2002-03-21 teleconference

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:42:04 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020329214204.GQ9322@jibboom.w3.org>
... are available at:


Text dumps follows.




                    Web Services Architecture Working Group
                          21-Mar-2002 meeting minutes

              [1]Working Group home page  [2]Meeting records

   Action Items: [3]pending, [4]new


   Present: 32
   Apple                                           Mike Brumbelow
   AT&T                                            Mark Jones
   BEA Systems                                     David Orchard
   Carnegie Mellon University                      Katia Sycara
   Compaq                                          Yin-Leng Husband
   Computer Associates                             Igor Sedukhin
   Digital Island                                  Joseph Hui
   DISA                                            Marcel Jemio
   EDS                                             Mike Ballantyne
   Ericsson                                        Nilo Mitra
   Hewlett-Packard Company                         Zulah Eckert
   IBM                                             Heather Kreger
   IONA                                            Steve Vinoski
   Ipedo                                           Alex Cheng
   Ipedo                                           Srinivas Pandrangi
   MartSoft Corp.                                  Jun Chen
   Microsoft Corporation                           Allen Brown
   Nokia                                           Michael Mahan
   Nortel Networks                                 Abbie Barbir
   Planetfred, Inc.                                Mark Baker
   SeeBeyond Technology Corp                       Alan Davies
   Sterling Commerce(SBC)                          Suresh Damodaran
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.                          Doug Bunting
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.                          Chris Ferris
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.                          Mark Hapner
   The Boeing Company                              Gerald Edgar
   The Thomson Corporation                         Hao He
   W. W. Grainger, Inc.                            Daniel Austin
   W. W. Grainger, Inc.                            Tom Carroll
   W3C                                             Hugo Haas
   webMethods, Inc.                                Prasad Yendluri
   XQRL Inc.                                       Tom Bradford
   Regrets: 24
   AT&T                                            Ayse Dilber
   ChevronTexaco                                   Roger Cutler
   Cisco Systems Inc                               Sandeep Kumar
   Compaq                                          Kevin Perkins
   CrossWeave, Inc.                                Timothy Jones
   DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology         Mario Jeckle
   DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology         Hans-Peter Steiert
   EDS                                             Waqar Sadiq
   Hewlett-Packard Company                         Dorothea Beringer
   Intalio Inc                                     Bob Lojek
   Intel Corporation                               Sharad Garg
   Intel Corporation                               Joel Munter
   IONA                                            Eric Newcomer
   Macromedia                                      Glen Daniels
   Microsoft Corporation                           Henrik Nielsen
   MITRE Corporation                               Paul Denning
   Oracle Corporation                              Jeff Mischkinsky
   SAP                                             Sinisa Zimek
   Software AG                                     Michael Champion
   Sybase, Inc.                                    Himagiri Mukkamala
   Systinet                                        Anne Thomas Manes
   TIBCO Software, Inc.                            Scott Vorthmann
   T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovationsgesellschaft Jens Meinkoehn
   Waveset Technologies                            Darran Rolls
   Absent: 12
   Artesia Technologies                            Dipto Chakravarty
   Cisco Systems Inc                               Krishna Sankar
   Contivo                                         Dave Hollander
   Documentum                                      Don Robertson
   France Telecom                                  Shishir Garg
   IBM                                             Jim Knutson
   Macromedia                                      Tom Jordahl
   MartSoft Corp.                                  Jin Yu
   MITRE Corporation                               James Davenport
   Software AG                                     Nigel Hutchison
   VeriSign, Inc.                                  Michael Mealling
   XQRL Inc.                                       Daniela Florescu


   See [5]agenda posted by the Chair .

Detailed minutes

   This first item is a change in how minutes are taken. The scribe is to
   be responsible for formatting the minutes to enable to post them on
   the W3C web site.

   Agenda review Approval of minutes face to face formal Liaison with
   DAML organization dive in to pick up to review goals from each of the
   champions request for discussion of Reliable and predicable of web
   services. (not covered due to time constraints)

  3. Approval of [6]minutes from last week

   no objections were voiced.
   Hugo: there were questions about security do people have anything to
   say about the minutes.
   Suresh: he asked what was recorded and what was recorded seemed to
   differ from what people remember. No real concern.
   Chris: minutes approved. They will be posted to the web page.

  4. Review action items

   ACTION: Editors: Rename D-AG0006 into AG-0006: PENDING
   ACTION: Chris to draft revised text for DAG0005: PENDING
   ACTION: DanielA: post issues list into CVS repository and post pointer
   to it; PENDING
   ACTION: Editors: include definition of web service and make it clear
   that it is an interim working definition and may change over time;
   ACTION: Editors: include glossary definitions; PENDING
   ACTION: Roger: Kick off goal D-AG0017: DONE
   ACTION: Hao: Kick off D-AG0018: DONE
   ACTION: Joe: Start discussion about privacy goal: DONE

  5. Status reports:

   Face to face - 33 people signed up. attending or regrets - conference
   bridge has been set-up Teleconference is available. we are looking to
   have a groups dinner Tuesday night. So early arrivers can attend the
   dinner. Members of the architecture group can attend the other WG's
   dinner on Wednesday. people need to register by April 1 in order to
   have enough food and other materials available at the meeting. The
   agenda of the F2F will be available shortly.

   Future F2F - in the 2nd week of June - in France - trying to nail down
   hosting details. Hugo mentioned that Canon sent a note regarding that.
   Hugo and Chris were waiting on each other for a note. can someone pay
   for this meeting? the amount is about 4000 euros. This would in in
   Brittany near the Canon facilities. If you can cover the cost contact
   Hugo or Chris. There was discussion in the coordination group of a
   vacation mouth in August. Chris was in favor of that. We are going to
   take the month of August off. We will resume in September. On the
   timing in June: the Soap group is having a meeting the first week of

   Editing team report:
   Daniel - they met Wednesday - to publish a requirements document
   tomorrow. All of the things Chris mentioned will be included. This is
   one prior version before the face to face. A lot more text and "flesh
   on the bones" there will be one more to be published before the F2F.
   Comments need to be in by the 25th of March. Anyone with threads try
   to provide summaries by March 25th. This is so that these threads will
   be considered at the F2F.
   Joe: is there any leeway on the closing day do to schedule conflicts.
   Tracing mail threads can be difficult.
   Daniel: Champions for each thread need to get their summaries ready
   for submission. The sooner we can get the summaries in the better we
   can be prepared. Joe is the champion of #6. The editors figured out
   what was with the issues list. This was sent to the mailing list.
   Daniel - all summaries need to be in by the 25th to have it ready for
   the F2F

  6. DAML initiative liaison

   Katia Sycara has joined the call this week. She introduced herself.
   She is at Carnegie Mellon. DAML+OIL for semantic annotation of the web
   DAML+S an ontology and components for describing invoking services.
   BBN, Nokia, Stanford, and Yale among others are involved. Two review
   documents are published. They are at www.DAML.ORG/services They are
   aiming to publish in a month this is an ontology - a web resource can
   provide a services: it has a service profile describing what it does
   to advertise their services with a registry. A service model provides
   what a service does a service grounding describes how to use it. The
   service profile. provider, name, QoS or rating. The process model and
   profile have inputs and outputs. She gave a description for how these
   could be used. (Thompson) How are things described, is there a
   semantic framework? the "holy grail" the matching is in form of
   keywords and semantics. with tokens and strings - if the service is
   well described not everything has to match. there is a DAMLS matching
   tool with partial matching. This is to operate on top of UDDI. UDDI
   does not provide any of these capabilities. This semantic matchmaker
   will operate with UDDI. If you have questions send them to Katia. How
   does this description language differ from other description
   languages? How does this relate functionally or hierarchically with
   other description languages? description logic or ?? there are a
   number of functional choreography ;languages fit in. ebXML -m not just
   a language - DAML+S is on top of RDF. If you have further questions
   contact Katia Sycara at katia@cs.cmu.edu

  7. Continue review of Goal Summaries


   Suresh: in regarding goal 7 - was that finished at the last
   Chris: goal 7 - that was not really concluded, but it was continuing
   being discussed. What is needed to conclude it. It needs to be
   resummarized. The summary of the threads should be: a combination of
   what are the different view in the threads and the success factors
   related to that goal, then part of the out come would be a refined
   Daniel: The editors would like to have the agreed on final wording of
   the goal, what are the success factors and requirements - in addition
   to a diagram (similar to what was created for goal #1 and Goal #2)
   There would be a proposed wording and the editors would approved. the
   diagrams were posted to the working group by Daniel. A picture is
   better than words to see how it works. These diagrams are simple Visio
   diagrams. Daniel went on to say to put some boxes together - as in an
   org chart for requirements. Daniel would like to have comments on #1
   and #2. These are stakes in the sand.

   Nilo: #3 - not much e-mail on #3 - to develop a standard architecture
   for web services that is sufficiently extensible for future expansion-
   separating transport from what web services are or what they do.
   descriptions should separate design and run time aspects. Allowing
   extensibility. Make extensible to enable future business goals. This
   should not impede adoption of further interactions and to handle
   future business goals. We need to enumerate facets of W/S - what are
   the aspects. What are the other blocks to allow the extension and
   addition of web services.
   Daniel: we should anticipate changes so aspects can be added to web
   services, things we have not yet thought of. Don't make the
   architecture rigid. We need separation of what from how. The
   architecture should not require that you can not do certain things. In
   addition we should not depend on the current state of the web.
   Situations change, business goals change, web services should be able
   to change to support future need. we can not know the future. Separate
   the abstract from concrete. The architecture should be able to be
   changes no explicit dependencies on the current situation. We need to
   create an architecture that allows for change. Leave room in your
   architecture for change.
   Nilo: last question - how is this different from #7 - predicable
   evolution of architecture. technology and business goals. How would it
   look to combine #3 and #7? this was a proposal. #7 was intended as a
   well defined way of change management. not for extension of the
   Chris: we need to come to an agreement

   Chris: #8 - Tim Jones is not on the call - no traffic in regard to
   this. he asked if the architecture is complete and self-contained. is
   this the notation for describing the architecture. the original goal
   are coherent and consistent. for parts to work together - and
   consistent - there is a common protocol for communications. It was
   suggested that Daniel and Tim discuss this. Continue discussion to
   this on the list. mike man- "in its definition" how we notate its
   definition. there was no intent for specific notations. Consistency of
   the architecture was discussed. Coherency and consistency is seen as
   MikeM: This may overlap with #11

   Mike: #11 - the current wording was read. - basically - to work with
   existing web architecture heterogeneous environments. This may overlap
   with semantic web goals. Semantic web is in planning, we have to be in
   tune with the current web, but not to go against what semantic web to
   working toward. There is some overlap with #4 platform independence
   and heterogeneous environments are similar.
   Abbey: Mark Baker is discussing this with current looking and future
   looking. What is the implication of #11 and #4 separate, we know how
   the current architecture works, but we are not aware of how the
   semantic web will work. They have some frameworks, but not an
   architecture. We need to concentrate on what works now, and we also
   need to make sure that we are compatible with the future semantic web.
   MarkB: it is not as clear cut as current looking and future looking.
   we need to be in sync with both.
   Hugo: the semantic web people argue for semantic models for what we
   are doing, as long as both goals are met we are safe. Making the
   difference between the old web and the future web we need to address
   both at the same time.
   Daniel: we need to do them both. We need to know what is the tension
   between what one has and what the other does not have. The semantic
   web will provide additional functionality. What will be different in
   the future? what are the contradictions? It's OK to have two separate
   goals as long as we have both of them. Do we need to make them a
   single goal? Semantic web is still emerging. We need to be careful of
   what are the priorities and requirements. We may need to have give and
   take on what we are developing, how could these be joined? or should
   they be? This Could be a topic for next week-s call. Mark and Mike
   thought this was more of a management task. more opinions are welcome
   on this topic. If the semantic web is a superset they need to be
   backward compatible with the current web. What are supersets and
   intersections between web services, the current web and what is seen
   as the semantic web. DAMLS is an offshoot of the semantic web. Are
   semantic web people developing a reference architecture?
   Daniel: they are not that far along it is not very well defined. How
   can we work with their architecture if they do not have an
   architecture? We do not have to do every goal at once, we may not be
   able to work this goal until later, since we do not know their
   architecture, but we need to be flexible to accommodate their future
   architecture. To be aligned with their architecture as well as to be
   compatible with what they are producing.

   it is 13:28 (Pacific daylight time) we are running out of time.

   Hugo: The semantic web group is paying attention to what we are doing
   ??: At the F2F we need to have a talk about the semantic web. we need
   to follow what they are doing.
   Chris: we will have something on this. Each of the members will need
   to examine semantic web information to understand what they are doing
   and how it effects what we should or should not be doing.

   Chris: urged people to review the summaries of the goals posted in the
   agendas each week. We need to make the best use of the list and the

Review of outstanding action items

   ACTION: Editors: Rename D-AG0006 into AG-0006: PENDING
   ACTION: DanielA: post issues list into CVS repository and post pointer
   to it; PENDING
   ACTION: Editors: include definition of web service and make it clear
   that it is an interim working definition and may change over time;
   ACTION: Editors: include glossary definitions; PENDING

Summary of new action items

   ACTION: WG members to review Goal draft summaries and comment on list

   See also the list of [7]pending action items.

    Chair: Chris Ferris < [8]chris.ferris@sun.com >
    Scribe: Gerald W. Edgar [9]<gerald.edgar@boeing.com>


   1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/
   2. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/#records
   3. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/03/21-minutes#curr-ai
   4. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/03/21-minutes#new-ai
   5. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-arch/2002Mar/0079.html
   6. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/03/14-minutes
   7. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/03/21-minutes#curr-ai
   8. mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com
   9. mailto:gerald.edgar@boeing.com

Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 16:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC